Allowed

D.Gajender S/o.D.Suryankanth v. Government of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Jul 2014WP/18867/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the writ petition in which the petitioner complained of inaction regarding survey and demarcation of land. The petition was allowed with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's documents and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's documents and pass appropriate orders on the applications referred to.

D.Gajender S/o.D.Suryankanth Vs Government of Telangana — Telangana HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.18867 of 2014

¶2

ORDER

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶4

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the survey and demarcation of land in Sy.No.114 of Moosapet Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, are not being conducted by the respondents in spite of his application, dated 21.05.2009, followed by a reminder application, dated 30.06.2014.

¶5

3. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, who has taken instructions, submits that the petitioner’s applications have been examined and it is found that the Government’s interest is also involved in the aforesaid land and that to enable the second respondent-Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records for passing appropriate orders, it is necessary to examine the documents of title of the petitioner, and if the petitioner furnishes the copies of Adangal thereon, the second respondent will consider his request and pass appropriate orders.

¶6

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4259 of 2014 dated 23.04.2014, wherein similar request with regard to the land admeasuring Acs.5.21 gts in Sy.No.580 situated at Kukatpally Village and Municipality, Balangar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was considered and since the survey was already conducted in

¶7

that case, the said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent therein to serve a copy of the report along with the sketch map to the petitioner therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will submit necessary documents before the respondents.

¶8

5. In view of that, therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the documents produced by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on his applications referred to above, in accordance with law, expeditiously.

¶9

6. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶10

_______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶11

24^th July, 2014 sj

D.Gajender S/o.D.Suryankanth v. Government of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Gajender S/o.D.Suryankanth v. Government of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Desala Narasimharaju, Vs The Additional Agent to the Government

P.Satyavathi, Vs The Additional Agent to the Government

G. Bhaskara Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pendor Jaiwantha, D/o. Vasantha Rao, Vs The Government of Telangana

Aluganti , Gopisetty Narappa, Vs The State of a.P.represented by

Gadamsetty Punna Rao Vs Gadamesetty Katchamsetty